Author of "Tasty: The Art and Science of What We Eat," on the science of taste, culinary history, and the future of food. My work has appeared in Smithsonian magazine, Wired, The Washington Post, Mother Jones, the Guardian and the Huffington Post. In a previous life I was a reporter for The Times-Picayune of New Orleans, where I contributed to several Pulitzer Prize-winning efforts. I am the co-author of "Path of Destruction: The Devastation of New Orleans and the Coming Age of Superstorms."

Romney's Rising Oceans Joke

Just a quick note on one part of Mitt Romney’s big speech. He didn’t simply dismiss global warming, or reject policies intended to address or mitigate against sea level rise, which is closely tied to global warming. Politicians do those things all the time. It’s ill-informed and irresponsible. But Romney took this a step further: he used the very idea of controlling sea level rise as a mere rhetorical device, a laugh line to mock Barack Obama‘s grandiosity. And he milked it for a few long seconds as the crowd at the Republican National Convention laughed.

“President Obama promised to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family.”

I don’t buy that this is solely about Obama’s alleged hubris. It’s a twofer: of course the crowd was laughing at the hubris angle; while I don’t have a poll to prove it, it’s safe to say most RNC attendees are not too keen on the current consensus on climate science either. So: double rimshot. But this remark is, needless to say, unhelpful. Sea level rise is a genuine problem. The oceans are actually rising as the planet warms up, in part because the volume of water is expanding due to the extra heat, and in part due to the ongoing melting of polar ice. Evidence suggests that for most of the past 3,000 years, sea levels were stable, but that they began rising in the 1950s. Since then, they crept up at an annual rate of 1.7 millimeters per year. Lately, though, sea level rise has apparently been accelerating: This 2010 paper published by Science magazine (paywalled), notes that over the past 20 years, global sea level has risen an average of 3.3 millimeters a year.

This is becoming a severe social and political problem because so many people around the world, and millions of them in the United States (including Romney’s Boston headquarters) are located along coastlines. Approximately 10% of the world’s population lives at elevations of 10 meters or less above sea level, the Science paper notes, and many of these places suffer from subsidence, erosion, and other problems that hasten their exposure and possible demise.

The biggest risk here is from storms, which can suddenly pump up sea levels by many meters, with little warning. People like living near coastlines, and, in the U.S. and other parts of the developed world, coastal development has surged in recent years. But most assumptions for development and flood protection assume a certain stability that no longer exists. Denying this (as some state and local governments are doing) is crazy: sooner or later, the people living in these places, and the businesses they built there, will pay the price.

So Romney’s notion that helping families and protecting communities against sea level rise are somehow diametrically opposed is silly. He knows better.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

There is no such thing as a person who can’t afford to move 3 millimeters to escape the ocean, but that doesn’t stop you from making your insulting remark about who cares for poorer people. You need to make a great recovery from that to win this debate.

I to believe the planet is warming but take issue with the term “global warming”… If ALL of the sciences agreed to the “rules” of global warming without their jobs or monies at stake I may be swayed some, however most, if not all, of them that believe in it either have financial gain or politics as the driver… The past 50 years are not even one drop in a bucket and the increase in “data” should not increase data however that is exactly what it has done to “support” one or the other side… My question is why does some science support hotter dryer days ahead while some science supports colder ice age conditions,,,, sounds like polar politics to me just as this article I am commenting on… My thoughts to all those that believe in either or both is watch your wallets go empty with either and not all of us will be around in 50 years to prove (or care) the truth of the matter….

The issue is not whether rising ocean is a factor or not. Clearly it is and a very important factor at that. The issue is that Obama is suggesting we control rising oceans through environmental regulation and emissions control and that we sacrifice millions of jobs right now to deal with it.

That is the joke. We are going to have to deal with rising oceans and build significant improvements to our infrastructure to reduce the impact of rising oceans. We are slowly going to have to reduce emissions and get “cleaner”. Rising oceans are a fact of life and likely to be a problem for decades.

But we need to get our economy going and build jobs and pay off 66.1 trillion dollars of debt that is on the US government balance sheet.

Sacrifice jobs? This is the biggest misconception out there. First, we need to be careful in the jobs we want to create. I can promise plenty of jobs after legalizing prostitution, opening up more casinos, and legalizing all kinds of drugs. That will definitely make more jobs, won’t it? OR…we can create jobs in the renewable energy sector and if I remember basic science class…the sun, and wind, and heat from the earth, are all going to be around for a lot longer than some coal mine or natural gas well. Nonrenewable energy jobs do not last! THis is why were in this mess. I see plenty of ghost towns that were once prominent in the coal industry. Fracking wells are not not in use and those jobs are gone now too. Be smart.

It is not surprising that you environmental zealots have also adopted some “faith-based” form of economics. Jobs are not created by waving your magic wands. They are created when private investors perceive that profits will accrue from hiring people.

Before you attack Mitt Romney for his remarks, make an honest disclosure to the American people on just one question – how much will their current standard of living be reduced by the full implementation of your agenda?

How much will current standard of living be reduced? Not sure, but let’s say 30% for argument’s sake (there are arguments that it will not be reduced at all, but I am yielding on the premise). Well let me put this way. If you had a choice of jumping off a cliff or giving away 30% of your income, which one would you choose.

The right denies the problem, or it says its too expensive to correct. Do you understand how serious this is?

What I understand is that there is no acceptable proof that your “cliff”exists. You can jump whichever way you want, but do not expect the rest of us to follow you like a bunch of lemmings.

AlGorian “climate science” is pseudo-science, not science. Apart from the inability to predict real-world events, the “data” cited is always less-than-accurate information that has been “adjusted” to support a preferred hypothesis.

It actually painted a very good picture that our Presidents priorities were not placed very well. How can the United States even remotely support a green earth program when our economy is in the tank. Obama put the cart before the horse. A viewpoint: Being a Geological Engineer the cycle of our planet is known and even not known. The majority of the US was covered with a huge ice sheet and melted away without the help of any human influence and global gases were far more excessive during this huge meltoff. It also should be noted that greenhouse gases were far more excessive in the 70′s and 80′s, yet we are now experiencing faster meltoff. Science has yet to determine our living planets cycle or root out causes for many of its changes. It is science and I do mean science like this that adds doubt to current green programs theory and I do mean theory about human impact on global warming. We used to publish science as science and theory as theory and now the distinction is blurred. Can we and should we strive to protect our planet……..yes. However the Green Initiative is not 100% science and should not be presented as such. Earths major and normal events will impact global changes more than we can ever come close to. The recent volcanic and earthquake events in the last 30 years validate with science my last statement. Just something to chew on and realize that a healthy and strong US economy can do more to help be good stewards of our earth then throwing money at unproven programs.